If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Hi, everyone. Our mutual friend Gopi has recently published some papers on the foundations of astronomy. Although we normally do not encourage much discussion about advanced physics or mathematics, I think these papers should be published and Simon will approve of our using CluesForum as a platform for a few select science works now and then, if just for critical awareness of their existence.

In this case, please allow me to republish a few papers of Gopi's in this thread, where his questions about Kepler's and Newton's problems are sharpened in specific critiques of logic and formulas.

I hope we can forgive an occasional name like Steiner or Mathis appearing, (the "offense" only because of potential controversy around names, not because of any particular critique of their work to discuss here) and just look to the thrust of the arguments being made about Kepler and Newton, which I trust could be instrumental in making a solid new foundation for astronomy and/or other scientific inquiries.

Thank you!

I think Gopi would be alright with my forwarding along a segment of his e-mail message to us as follows:

[... B]y going through Newton's proof carefully, we find that he did not derive the inverse-square law for planets, the law of gravity, and the laws of circular motion by mathematical necessity, but assumed it ad-hoc. I wanted to share this series of papers with you and the folks on this forum, and hope to see what you think of it:

1st paper: Replacing the Foundations of Astronomy provides an outline of the process, into which this research is embedded.2nd paper: Identifies how Newton simply assumed the inverse-square law in planetary motion by cleverly disguising Kepler's third law.3rd paper: Original form of Kepler's law, that he actually observed, and what was done to squeeze it to a linear system.4th paper: The biggie showing gravity is insufficient, physically and mathematically, to sustain circular/elliptical motion. At most it provides one component of an infinite series.

I hope there is something here for all, and it is worth the digging. The first paper is written in a colloquial way, while the other three require good amount of algebra, and occasionally calculus. Having the Principia, even an e-copy, handy will also help. The last paper is the most relevant of all for the entire thread of research, where it shows that circular motion can only be seen in terms of forces if we include an infinite series of them. Picking up just acceleration due to gravity would be like picking up a grain of sand and calling it a beach.

Napoleon Bonaparte: Mr. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, andhave never even mentioned its Creator.

Pierre-Simon Laplace: I had no need to hypothesize His intervention.

- Reported from a conversation between the two men in 1802

“The old argument,” [Voldemort] said softly. “But nothing I have seen in the world has supported yourpronouncements that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, Dumbledore.”

“Perhaps you have been looking in the wrong places,” suggested Dumbledore.

- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Introduction: Dramatis Personae

The ancient view of the heavens was dominated by the Ptolemaic approach, which placed the earth in the center andpictured the heavenly bodies uniformly moving in concentric circles around it. Where circles would not suffice, thePtolemaic theory used off-center circles and also mini-circles, called epicycles, for centuries – to fit theory toobservations. The modern view of the celestial universe takes its start in the 15th century from the ideas of NicolausCopernicus and later Johannes Kepler. While Copernicus showed that calculations based on the heliocentric point ofview provided a much more convenient and aesthetic alternative to the Ptolemaic theory, he still remained with theidea of using circles. Kepler, drawing on the data collected by Tycho Brahe, extended Copernican thought and wasthe first to highlight the inner harmony in the movements of the planets with his three main identifications fromobservation:1. Every planet moves in an ellipse, with small eccentricity, and with the Sun at one of its focus2. It covers equal areas in equal times3. The different planets have an inner harmonic law: R^3 is proportional to T^2, provided eccentricities are small

Here R is the mean distance of the planet from the Sun, and T is its time period. Kepler figured out the third‘harmonic’ law when his book Harmonies of the World was already in the press, so he did not have much time todevelop those ideas in detail. He began his book with the idea that planets from Mercury to Saturn are spaced interms of the five platonic solids, but after carrying out an analysis in terms of musical theory, he ended the bookwith a most interesting conclusion: he declared that all his calculations based on rigid models were ultimatelyfailing, and he was forced to reconsider the heavens not in terms of rigid mechanical movements, but in terms ofharmonies of life. He expressly states that:

That is to say, in this house the world, I was asking not only why stones of a more elegant form but also whatform would fit the stones, in my ignorance that the Sculptor had fashioned them in the very articulateimage of an animated body… Wherefore, just as neither the bodies of animate beings are made nor blocksof stone are usually made after the pure rule of some geometrical figure, but something is taken away fromthe outward spherical figure, however elegant it maybe (although the just magnitude of the bulk remains), sothat the body may be able to get the organs necessary for life, and the stone the image of the animate being;so too as the ratio which the regular solids had been going to prescribe for the planetary spheres is inferiorand looks only towards the body and material, it has to yield to the consonances, in so far as that wasnecessary in order for the consonances to be able to stand closely by and adorn the movement of the globes.

This powerful conclusion showed clearly that no matter what model we may make of the heavens, and calculate tothe utmost precision, unless we realize that it has to be compatible with the phenomena of life, we are treating theheavens like angular rocks and stones. And try as we might, they will not fit, just as a square does not fit in a roundhole.

Kepler also had another current of interest in the upcoming ideas of magnetism by Queen Elizabeth’s personalphysician: William Gilbert. America had been discovered and oceanic navigation was at an all-time high,encouraging the use of the magnetic compass and the notion of earth as a giant magnet. Based on Gilbert’s work DeMagnete, Kepler suggested seeing the planetary movements also as being magnetic in nature. At the time of Keplerand even until the 18th century, the cause of magnetism was still seen as an animate (in fact due to anima or soul)and also sometimes astrological in origin, and it did not have the purely inanimate connotation it took on later.

Meanwhile, Kepler’s contemporary – Galileo Galilei – was not only pointing his telescopes to the skies to find themoons of Jupiter, but was also discovering the law of falling bodies. The Aristotelian worldview that had held formore than a millennium had a garbled and confused idea of the behavior of inanimate projectiles such as rocks andcannon-balls, and still thought that they were swimming through the air by pushing the air behind them. It wasGalileo who clarified this confusion and discovered a simple relation for most falling bodies: falling distance R isproportional to t^2. This looks almost like an earthly version of Kepler’s Harmonic law. Both of these formulae brokeaway from the habits of classic Greek science, which dealt only with speeds and not with accelerations and othervariations of motion.

After Kepler’s and Galileo’s death, astronomy had come to a crossroads. There was one route that suggested thestudy of living things via harmonic and musical laws, opened up by Kepler, while the other path by Galileo openedup the study of “movements of stones”: mechanics. The second path was chosen – by Newton.

Newton set to work by abandoning all reference to harmonies and living qualities, and used Galileo’s law of fallingbodies as his starting point. There were several problems with this:

Problem 1: Galileo’s law had R is proportional to t^2 while the only known planetary law (Kepler’s) had R^3proportional to T^2. There was hence a discrepancy of a factor 1/R^2 between Kepler’s and Galileo’s laws.

Problem 2: Kepler’s R was a two-dimensional average, and he had cautioned that his law is true only for orbits thatare nearly circular. Galileo’s R was simply a linear distance.

Problem 3: Galileo’s law was for vertical rectilinear motion i.e. falling straight down until hitting the ground. It wasnot the same as a circular or elliptic motion, which is 2-dimensional, stable, and continuous.

Firstly, Kepler’s and Galileo’s laws were two different things, like apples and oranges. In order to push the Kepler’sand Galileo’s ideas together, the only possible way was to assume that Galileo’s Law (acceleration) is valid as theinverse square (1/R^2) for planetary motion! This would make up for the offset observed in the dimensions of R inthe two ratios. This idea was already put forward by some of his contemporaries like Hooke, Wren and others, butNewton proceeded to assert it mathematically. By combining the two concepts, he asserted that an object in orbitwas “falling continuously”! Two birds were hit with one falling stone. Hence problem 1 was pushed aside.The second problem was a little trickier, since it is hard to make a variable averaged over two dimensions andreduce it to a line. But this was also done, by including the linear version of R as an implicit assumption in hisproofs, and later extricating it out and calling it a 2D-averaged R. Since this operation was hidden in a number ofdense proofs in his Principia (purposely written that way ‘to avoid being baited by smatterers in mathematics’according to Newton) people came to believe that Newton proved Kepler’s Third Law mathematically. He had donenothing of the sort, but had simply assumed a 1D version of the law without making it explicit. That way, there wasno further use for Kepler’s caution, and the distance R was indiscriminately applied for both circles and straightlines. Hence, 2D was made 1D, and Problem 2 was also brushed aside, ad hoc.

Finally, in order to apply Galileo’s linear equation to circular motion, which is 2-dimensional, Newton had toassume a linear attraction of a body moving in a circle to another body, in other words: “gravity”. A fullmathematical approach requires that circular motion is only possible when there is equilibrium between thetendencies of the body to move towards the center and the tendency to move away from the center. It also requiresforces that are distributed in all directions in 2D, to generate a circular or elliptical orbit. Common sense dictatesunless something is pushing out as well as in, the system collapses inwards. In order to prove his ideas, Newtoncompletely ignored the tendency of a body to move away, and focused only on the tendency towards the center.Still, there is one other dimension to deal with: the initial sideways velocity that is required to “start” the planetarymovements in his theory. Newton did not say anything clear on that. Hence Problem 3 was also completely brushedaside.

The planetary-level inverse-square law of force was hence constructed in this fashion, by simply assuming it out ofthin air. It was asserted that just as an apple falls to the ground, all the heavenly bodies fall towards each other andend up rotating around one another because of it. On top of that, similar to magnetism, it was also asserted that thebodies “attract” one another. This is about as logical as asserting that if two balls are rolling towards each other, theynecessarily “attract” each other. Furthermore, based on which body was rotating around which and at what speed,heavenly bodies were assigned masses. This needed a new concept of “gravitational mass”, once more simplycreated. All of these elements were combined into the “Theory of Universal Gravitation,” and what was true onearth was claimed to be true in the heavens. The numerical backing for the entirety of this theory was the numericalrelationship of one particular motion of the moon with the value of gravity on earth – almost like building an entirecastle on a single reed. And yet he claimed: “I feign no hypotheses.”

Naturally, there was backlash from continental Europe, from the likes of Huygens and Leibniz, for assuming a forceof attraction out of nothing. However, their arguments lacked teeth, since they had not mathematically shown thatcircular motion cannot simply be defined by an attraction. The followers of Descartes had some idea that circularmotion required circular forces, and hence continued to ascribe planetary motion to celestial vortices, but they didnot have the mathematical capacity to challenge Newton’s derivations of “attraction towards a center”. Thephilosopher Hegel vigorously criticized Newton’s concepts, but since Newton was so far ahead mathematically,Hegel’s protests were ignored by the scientific community. It did not help that Newton was constantly embroiled inpriority disputes lasting decades, with Leibniz, Hooke and others – the atmosphere of open discussion was barelyexistent. Newton’s high position, as President of the Royal Society for 24 years and Master of the Mint for 30 years,also brooked no argument. Newton’s works were popularized in Europe with great energy by the likes of Voltaireand Hume, and within a few decades, the theory of gravitation had become very well-known

Following the Newtonian era, in the 18th century there were a series of mathematicians – Bernoulli, Clairaut, Euler,D’Alembert, Lagrange, Laplace, Leverrier – who basically picked up where Newton left off and ran with it. Therewere no descendants to the wholistic viewpoints of Tycho and Kepler, but only those who made severalimprovements of a mathematical nature to Newtonian theory. Calculus became a powerful tool in calculating theeffects of gravitation of all the planets upon each other, due to their assumed masses. The motion of the nearestneighbor – the Moon – was a surprisingly hard nut to crack even for Newton, and several new mathematicaltechniques had to be invented just to tackle that.

In the process, a new form of theory became popular: Perturbation theory. In this approach, a small approximatedeviation from Newton’s law is assumed, based on empirical data, and then a rigorous calculation of differentialequation is used to nail down the actual value of the deviation. It does not take much to recognize that this wassimply the approach taken before Kepler by Copernicus and others for over a thousand years – adding epicycles tomake the observations fit. It is the same concept, but now dressed up in gravitational disguise:

replacing astr 01.GIF

In other words, the entire thought process took several steps backwards, to redo the same process as the PtolemaicCopernican epicycle theory, only with different variables. The more logical way of approach would have been toredirect the focus of the improved mathematical techniques to the assumptions in Newton’s theory, but instead thesame equations were re-derived with calculus, without examining the assumptions. Hence any modern day textbookgives the same derivation for circular and elliptical motion that Newton first derived in his Principia. Theequivalence of the epicycle theory and gravitational theory has not been realized, and any new discovery that fits inwith the mathematical framework of Newtonian gravity is lauded as a “triumph of the theory of gravitation.” Inreality, it is simply the triumph of fitting curves to the data or minor linear extrapolations – something that hadalready been done at least since 2nd century AD. Yet the situation is conceptually identical.

As for problem 1 – the presence of rotational motion – there was no solution provided by Newton to the reasons asto why all the planets rotate in the same direction. Laplace, and also independently, Kant, suggested that aprimordial nebula started rotating to give it the initial velocity. However, neither bothered with the complication thatthere are an infinite series of linear pushes and pulls necessary for maintaining an orbit even for a simple circular orelliptic motion. It was not as simple as giving an initial jolt to set the whole system running, like a machine. Yet, this‘explanation’ has stood for 200 years, till today.

Just like the Ptolemaic theory, there had to come a point where the calculations would not fit observation. This pointwas reached in several areas, such as that of the motion of the Moon, but one received particular attention at the endof the 19th century: the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. In order to fill this hole, another theory – theGeneral Theory of Relativity – was proposed by Einstein. And what was the mathematical difference betweenNewton’s law of Gravitation and the General Theory of Relativity? The Relativity theory added a term that dependson the fourth power of the distance, to the inverse-square law! In other words, acceleration also depends marginallyon 1/R4 instead of just on 1/R2. Hence, this theory did not question the assumptions at all and neither did it haveeven the slight empirical backing that Newton had with Kepler’s and Galileo’s laws; instead a new assumption thatgravity is based on the notion of “curved space-time” was simply added to the system. In a nutshell, that is the actualachievement of General Relativity.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

In the late 19th century, one of the French mathematicians – Henri Poincaré – had already discovered that many ofthe terms being used in the “perturbation” series by mathematicians like Laplace and Lagrange were becominginfinite for long periods of time, making the system unstable. In simple words, the solutions ‘blow up’ fairlyquickly. He also showed that the general problem of 3 mutually gravitating bodies was insoluble through anymathematical analysis! Many physicists and mathematicians built up modern “Chaos theory” based on these ideas,to show simply that one cannot calculate the movements of the planets accurately. Thus began the field of non-lineardynamics.

In the middle of the 20th century, with computers entering the field, the mathematicians pretty much gave up oncalculating the orbits by themselves and programmed the computer to do it, even though it was mathematicallyshown that these orbits were incalculable. They had to be satisfied with approximations or numerical methods (or“brute force” methods.) The result of it all was that after 300 years, Newtonian/Einsteinian thought lands in the samespot that Kepler ended: the orbits point to a living or chaotic system. Only now, there is the additional baggage of allthe wrong concepts introduced with regard to “inverse-square law”, “gravitational attraction”, “gravitational mass”and “curved space-time” along with uncountable number of minor assumptions. In this process, an enormousamount of human effort was put to derive thousands of terms in equations over centuries. The entire enterprise hasbeen a wild goose chase – very much like the attempt to calculate the value of “pi” with 100% accuracy.

Moving Forward

It is clear that the only way to get out of the dead end and move forward is to go back to the point of deviation, andstart retracing the steps from where Kepler and Galileo left off. Some researchers have done that, unheralded.

It is seen that many of the objections regarding the lack of understanding of forces for circular motion were alreadyput forward by Hegel, using his check of philosophical consistency. His philosophical successor, Rudolf Steiner,was equally critical of the Newtonian approach, and in the early part of the 20th century, gave several new ideas tocarry forward the research into astronomy. For starters, he insisted that no ad-hoc assumptions must be introduced inthe understanding of science, and to stick to the phenomena like Goethe did in his approach to life. Based on that, hementioned that only centric forces are no longer applicable for celestial phenomena, but one has to include otherconcepts such as forces away from the center and rotating/shearing forces to account for planetary movements. Healso explained that astronomical movements cannot be calculated, but can only be characterized, by identifyingharmonic patterns between living systems and celestial changes systematically. Other complicated shapes likelemniscates were suggested for study, to determine the mutual movement of the planets and stars. Severalresearchers like Lili Kolisko, Ernst Lehrs and Elizabeth Vreede carried forward these suggestions.

Dewey Larson, an American engineer, figured out the reciprocity of inward and outward forces necessary forastronomical motions, and described it in his book Beyond Newton. He developed the concepts by taking circular,linear and vibratory movements as the primary movements, and set up an entire system of physical theory(Reciprocal System) step-by-step in a Hegelian fashion where physical phenomena can be understood withoutarbitrary assumptions using nothing but motion (see Nothing But Motion). He predicted Quasar properties beforethey were discovered, and also identified that stellar evolution was backwards from what modern astronomy makesof it. After covering a wide range of phenomena, his researches also led to the conclusion that all phenomena havenatural limits, and also that life has to be included as a component of astronomical phenomena. This takes care of allthe problems with extrapolation that have faced physicists for centuries.

Other researchers have shed additional light on these phenomena. Johannes Schlaf and, recently, Simon Hytten havediscovered several problems with the conventional Copernican viewpoint that do not line up with experience. KVKNehru and Bruce Peret have re-evaluated the Reciprocal System to include both linear and rotational motion asequally primary, solving a dilemma that had been unresolved since the time of Descartes. Peret has determined theseveral details of planetary evolution from these standpoints. Miles Mathis has independently detected both theproblems with the conventional explanations for orbital motion as well as the need for an outward force againstgravity, and has also, among other things, shown how Lagrange implicitly assumed it in his equations.

Although these few researchers are plugging along, it is imperative that the entire process of astronomical study beapproached afresh, since very little research has been done on the relationships of cosmic harmonies to life. Theflaws that were propagated over centuries must be recognized for what they are; otherwise astronomy will continueto get stuck in its own rigid orbit. When it is clear that a fresh foundation of this nature is needed, it is possible tomove forward from the vague notions of ancient astrology and confused notions of modern astronomy to a clearexposition of the relationship of man to the stars.

It will be glad to receive any comments/criticisms/suggestions. This may be the only place that I can share these results with a receptive audience.

Gopi, as far as I know, there are two sites that serve as repository of controversial, or not standard, papers, which are usually rejected by scientific journals. One is http://vixra.org/ (like arxiv.org but reversed), and the other is http://gsjournal.net/. I prefer this last one, as it contains lots of anti-relativity (Einstein) papers.

Thanks Gopi I am really glad to see you have written papers on this subject. I also came across errors in Newton & other very very high profile mathematicians(while also seeing many of their brilliant discoveries).. I am looking forward to reading in detail your arguments and posting my comments afterwards, I just have been ultra busy at work and mentally tired over the last week to spend time on it.

Like you, I have found there is only a handful of people who are even willing to consider these kinds of questions. The vast, vast majority of places online for scientific discussion you would simply be banned. In fact this is the only place I know of you could post this and people would actually honestly consider it, and the owners of the forum would let it go in discussion instead of desperately shutting off the lines of inquiry. Science is said to be trying to disprove hypothesis, but most peoples brains, especially science type people, function the opposite, where they try to 'debunk the debunkers', and cling to their orthodoxy regardless of the arguments.

Back in 2013 I was engaged actively discussing in the SSSS thread with Simon, about his solar system model. I was shocked to read that for him the Earth is not moving, but that the Sun rotates around the Earth, as in the Tychonic model. And that Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo were all a kind of bad people and were all wrong in this theories, and that even Kepler murdered Tycho!

At first I thought that was a distraction from other matters (the media fakery), but because I'm physicist I patienly read all the reasonings exposed in the thread, and I tried to explain why the different models of the solar system were in fact mathematically equivalent, as Kepler had demonstrated in his Astronomia Nova.

Since then, I don't know if those ideas have changed or progressed, so I kindly ask what is the current forum policy regarding these astronomical issues.

Thanks.

Regarding Newton, it can be admitted that he had errors, as every scientist. But to be fair, it should be noted that Einstein was a plagiarist. In fact he copied the equations of General Relativity from David Hilbert, and the previous mathematical work was done by Marcel Grossmann, and that he copied the formula for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury from Paul Gerber. So what is the sense of this thread?

The theory of gravity explaining our solar system, can easily be disproved as objects that only had attractive force towards each other would end up smashing into each other, sooner or later.

My university friends tell me that the moon is 'falling' away from the Earth, just perfectly in balance with the pull of the Earth's gravitation. That is just laughable, as even if the moon started out 'falling' away from the Earth, the force of gravitation as explained would first decelerate the moon until it was not moving, and then accelerate the Moon towards the Earth in a straight line, until collision.

But my university educated friends cannot give on this point, as it would mean some guys with no 'official' training speculating on a random forum, has a more advanced understanding of our solar system than our best astronomers and physicists.

Last edited by aa5 on Sat May 20, 2017 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

The ideas I have worked out so far.. There must be both an attractive force & a repulsive force acting between the Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is dependent on the distance between the Earth & the Moon.

On Wikipedia it says the Perigee of the Moon is ~362,000 km, and the Apogee is ~405,000km. With the midpoint of its orbit being ~384,000km from the Earth.

Lets start out at the midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from the Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from the Earth beyond 384,000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth(at the Apogee ~405,000km).

As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards the Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384,000km once again, but this time going the other way.

As the Moon travels closer to the Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards the Earth. Until at ~362,000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards the Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from the Earth.

With this the Moon can remain in orbit of the Earth for millions or billions of years.

One question I had with my thinking is wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive distances, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of the Earth, and the movement of the Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is my idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.

Another point.. I think to understand something it is a mistake to go to the math first as our university geniuses go to and then miss the dead simple problems in their theories. First develop with words a description of how the system operates, and then with words a theory that explains the observations, and no one can come up with a logical reason that the theory is wrong. Then at that point, develop some math to match the theory.

But there are other threads in this forum to discuss gravity and the solar system. This forum's admins proposed that the Earth rotates but does not move around the Sun. That's why I was asking for a clarification of their current thinking and for the purpose of this thread.

Being a fan of the History and Philosophy of Science, specially astronomy and physics (also mathematics and medicine), I think I have read enough to understand the work of authors like Newton, Kepler, Euler, Lagrange and others.

I didn't know about the work of Dewey Larson and the Reciprocal System theory. So I have spent some time reading his works and I can say that it is difficult to find a sentence understandable, and that there is no mathematical reasoning at all, only gibberish, much like Miles Mathis' works.

This is not a final opinion from my part, as I recognize I should study more thoroughly Larson's works, but I can say at this moment that it is very easy to disprove his main argument, that the universe is only motion (accelerated or uniform?), because of d'Alembert's principle, that dynamics can be reduced to statics (no accelerated motion, but equilibrium) (see Lagrange's Mécanique Analytique).

But really, I think all the scientists that propose such new bizarre theories, do not deserve our attention, as long as they do not expose all the lies in today's science (space exploration or nuclear energy for example). But they need a job! Newton can be forgiven because in his times NASA didn't exist.

agraposo » May 20th, 2017, 10:38 am wrote:But there are other threads in this forum to discuss gravity and the solar system. This forum's admins proposed that the Earth rotates but does not move around the Sun. That's why I was asking for a clarification of their current thinking and for the purpose of this thread.

Dear Agraposo,

First off, I wish to sincerely thank you - most belatedly - for your steady contributions in the "SSSS" thread back in 2013, as I timidly submitted my musings and questions concerning the heliocentric Copernican cosmic model. You were the one who kept me 'on the edge' - so to speak - as I tried to make sense of the various, peculiar aberrations of the same. Thanks to your fine and wise efforts of pointing out the potential 'equivalence' between the Copernican model and my fledgling, tychonian-inspired ideas, I truly learned a lot, since you had me digging ever deeper into the vast, nay, colossal body of astronomical observations gathered throughout the centuries by earnest researchers from all over the world.

Secondly, I will just say this much: our Earth does not careen around the Sun at 107,226 km/h. It's the other way round. And Earth is not completely stationary (as Tycho Brahe believed).

Of course, this is only my personal (yet now refined) opinion - yet I can't wait to hear your own opinion of my TYCHOS model - as I finally get down to share it with you - and everyone.